The only reason I am posting here is to make sure that my intentions are clear, despite that they seem to remain unclear to some.

Yes, you have some personal issues with Gebre. Everyone sees that.

Quote

I know that some perhaps think this is a personal grudge, the fact is, Gebre and I know many personal things about each other, either of us could easily have turned this into a public mudslinging contest, but he remained silent and I did my best to stick to the issue that I have a problem with.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

And is she an ecumenical council to declare that? Isn't overauthority of some laymen the problem being discussed in this thread?

I'm not sure that all authoritative issues need to rise to the level of Hierarch, Synod, or Ecumenical Council. There are generally accepted principles and standards that can be applied by all - otherwise, we would be paralyzed waiting for each level of administration to address the myriad of questions and challenges that arise day-to-day.

Along these lines, I can understand why you would feel this way about LBK's participation in icon discussions as the tone may seem similar to Gebre's usual style. However, I find that the great difference in substantive approach between the two negates any apparent similarity. LBK speaks about icons from a researched and reasonable position that is in line with the overwhelming majority of Orthodox sources and tradition on the subject, and keeps responses only to discussions of the substance of the icons themselves and the underlying theological problems seen in them. Gebre's approach to the pacifist issue is more problematic considering the history of the Church-state relationship and the willingness to bless the soldiers (even if we don't bless the plans, ideals, etc.). I am sympathetic to his position - I believe that war is never justified from a Christian moral POV, that it always must be repented of (since the taking of a life is a traumatic event for the soul regardless of the justification for doing it), and that we don't do a good enough job of promoting a peaceful agenda. But I would never take it to the level of implying (or openly stating) that it is a dogmatic truth of Christianity that we must always be pacifists. It is an untenable position.

(p.s. I only highlighted the two individuals to contrast good and bad approaches to dogmatic questions, NOT to start a debate about either user personally.)

Much of this thread is interesting, but I can not get past the fact that the title is directing it towards the point of view of one poster. I would hate to see us devolve to a series of posts doing just that. It would tend to stifle the expression of provocative or unpopular points of view and transform the board into a "Hallelujah Chorus" of self righteous triumphalism or a boring place of the repetitive self-evident. There is plenty of room to dispute or counter a post in the body of a thread with which we take issue.

That is exactly what has been bothering me as well. Thanks for stating it so clearly.

We could then have 6 pages of arguments on why he is a heretic for saying he might venerate an icon of the Theotokos that does not have stars on it if it was in his parish. Of course, I would assure you that he is a good friend of mine and I have approached him about this, but he has refused to repent, so I have no choice but to bring it to the public in hopes that he will repent.

The term planet earth is an innovation which has arisen in recent centuries with the error of heliocentrism.

If one wants to confess a pure doctrine of Orthodoxy, they should be careful not to refer to the earth as a planet, unlike the current Pope as well as Patriarch Kirill and Patriarch Bartholomew, who regularly speak in error when they refer to our planet earth.

We could then have 6 pages of arguments on why he is a heretic for saying he might venerate an icon of the Theotokos that does not have stars on it if it was in his parish. Of course, I would assure you that he is a good friend of mine and I have approached him about this, but he has refused to repent, so I have no choice but to bring it to the public in hopes that he will repent.

If this is a swipe at me, I ask that you go back and read Fr George's post # 285. It's bad form to put words in other people's mouths.

We could then have 6 pages of arguments on why he is a heretic for saying he might venerate an icon of the Theotokos that does not have stars on it if it was in his parish. Of course, I would assure you that he is a good friend of mine and I have approached him about this, but he has refused to repent, so I have no choice but to bring it to the public in hopes that he will repent.

If this is a swipe at me, I ask that you go back and read Fr George's post # 285. It's bad form to put words in other people's mouths.

No, I assure you it was not. Quite the opposite. You have, quite reasonably, not made such a thread. I am merely pointing out that we can disagree on issues and yet recognize that the disagreement does not have to desend into accusing each other of heresy.

The term planet earth is an innovation which has arisen in recent centuries with the error of heliocentrism.

If one wants to confess a pure doctrine of Orthodoxy, they should be careful not to refer to the earth as a planet, unlike the current Pope as well as Patriarch Kirill and Patriarch Bartholomew, who regularly speak in error when they refer to our planet earth.

We could then have 6 pages of arguments on why he is a heretic for saying he might venerate an icon of the Theotokos that does not have stars on it if it was in his parish. Of course, I would assure you that he is a good friend of mine and I have approached him about this, but he has refused to repent, so I have no choice but to bring it to the public in hopes that he will repent.

If this is a swipe at me, I ask that you go back and read Fr George's post # 285. It's bad form to put words in other people's mouths.

No, I assure you it was not. Quite the opposite. You have, quite reasonably, not made such a thread. I am merely pointing out that we can disagree on issues and yet recognize that the disagreement does not have to desend into accusing each other of heresy.

We could then have 6 pages of arguments on why he is a heretic for saying he might venerate an icon of the Theotokos that does not have stars on it if it was in his parish. Of course, I would assure you that he is a good friend of mine and I have approached him about this, but he has refused to repent, so I have no choice but to bring it to the public in hopes that he will repent.

If this is a swipe at me, I ask that you go back and read Fr George's post # 285. It's bad form to put words in other people's mouths.

I think he was just trying to be funny.

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.—St. Isaac of Syria

We could then have 6 pages of arguments on why he is a heretic for saying he might venerate an icon of the Theotokos that does not have stars on it if it was in his parish. Of course, I would assure you that he is a good friend of mine and I have approached him about this, but he has refused to repent, so I have no choice but to bring it to the public in hopes that he will repent.

If this is a swipe at me, I ask that you go back and read Fr George's post # 285. It's bad form to put words in other people's mouths.

Let's walk through this and see if it makes sense; So just because somebody didn't change their mind after you talked to them, you're gonna take what's obviously a personal issue to a forum that has zero authority to make them change their mind to... make them change their mind? Assuming this isn't a pathetic bid for attention, why not just take the matter up with their priest or bishop? Better yet, why not worry about your own problems?

I vote the mods lock this embarrassing waste of bandwidth down.

Nope, if that is a result of all this then hooray. But if you read through this you would see that I have explained this several times, maybe you should go through and read the several times I have explained this and then maybe that will explain it.

Lyza, thank you. I have not discussed anything with him since he removed me. The only reason I am posting here is to make sure that my intentions are clear, despite that they seem to remain unclear to some. Once again, I am not saying that I disagree and that is why I am doing this, I have stated clearly that is is not a personal matter nor a matter of disagreement. The OP is clear that I have an issue with him continually misusing fathers and others writings to justify his stance.

I know that some perhaps think this is a personal grudge, the fact is, Gebre and I know many personal things about each other, either of us could easily have turned this into a public mudslinging contest, but he remained silent and I did my best to stick to the issue that I have a problem with. I know Gebre seems to think I have betrayed him, and thats fine, and that I am maligning his character, again he is free to think whatever he wishes when it comes to people criticizing his methods or views, and like I said many of us have pointed this particular issue out to him on a number of occasions. This is his way of dealing with it, making me or others the "bad guy." I will tell you this, I would NOT have given my daughter his recently deceased daughters name if I did not feel some sort of connection with the guy. It truly is unfortunate that he uses dishonest methods to mislead people, wether he knows it or not. But him outright refusing to listen is a serious issue, in my opinion and others who are close to him. He flat out told me that he does not need me giving him any advice.

Ioannes, you have made your point. Some here, such as I, have even agreed with the substance of your complaints. What do you hope to accomplish by pushing your complaints to the extent that you're now harassing Gebre? Don't you think it's about time you stopped?

We could then have 6 pages of arguments on why he is a heretic for saying he might venerate an icon of the Theotokos that does not have stars on it if it was in his parish. Of course, I would assure you that he is a good friend of mine and I have approached him about this, but he has refused to repent, so I have no choice but to bring it to the public in hopes that he will repent.

If this is a swipe at me, I ask that you go back and read Fr George's post # 285. It's bad form to put words in other people's mouths.

No, I assure you it was not. Quite the opposite. You have, quite reasonably, not made such a thread. I am merely pointing out that we can disagree on issues and yet recognize that the disagreement does not have to desend into accusing each other of heresy.

My apologies if my attempt at humor was vague.

For the record, I never accused Gebre of heresy. Gebredoxy is a term coined on FB. Simply because Gebre makes it seem as if some of his beliefs are taught by the church.

Peter, I am harassing Gebre here? I am merely making sure that my position is understood, and it still seems to be misunderstood by some. I take offense to the accusation of me harassing him, I simply posted this on FB, here, and on Amazon.com and left it at that. I have not contacted him since he completely blocked me on FB. So the allegation of harrassment is a bit extreme, am I not allowed to defend what I wrote here?

We could then have 6 pages of arguments on why he is a heretic for saying he might venerate an icon of the Theotokos that does not have stars on it if it was in his parish. Of course, I would assure you that he is a good friend of mine and I have approached him about this, but he has refused to repent, so I have no choice but to bring it to the public in hopes that he will repent.

It is pretty obvious I have failed miserably in that some perceive this to be a personal grudge, and some that I am harassing Gebre. I cannot change how others perceive what I say, so I can only take everything that has been said to me and offer an apology to everyone here. My goal was not to harm, hurt, or malign anyones character but simply bring to light things which were said or taught in public forums and point them out in public forums. Again, I apologize to everyone as I have made an obvious mistake as every attempt to explain my position and my intentions have failed, I can only blame myself as having made an error. Forgive me.

Anyway, the quotes you found most offensive were those in the original post. And they were arguable.

St. Basil takes a very negative view of war, although he says sometimes it can be pardonable (eg. doing something wrong and then being forgiven for it).

Then, Gebre wrote that he agreed with some words of Fr. Harakas and he quoted them. Gebre did not say he agreed with everything on the topic. I could find a quote from a Church father on the Psalms, say I agree with the church father who says "_____". Yet that would not mean I agree with everything he wrote on the subject. Here, Fr. Harakas wrote about the Church father's negative view on war, and Gebre agreed with that.

As you pointed out, Fr. Harakas went on to make a more positive assessment of war:

Quote

Virtually absent in the tradition is any mention of a “just” war, much less a “good” war. For the Eastern Orthodox tradition, I concluded, war can be seen only as a “necessary evil,” with all the difficulty and imprecision such a designation carries.

Yet even here, Fr. Harakas said war "can" be seen as necessary, not that it is necessary.

Plus, one can reasonably argue that holy people should not engage in a large evil, even if it is "necessary". Faced with an order by an inquisitor to convert from the faith, it becomes absolutely necessary to do so. And yet we are not to do it anyway. Granted, the Church takes a more positive view of war than of a forced apostasy, but my point is that something being necessary does not make it OK.

So when it comes to St. Basil and Gebre's discussion of Fr. Harakas, it is arguable.

One possible problem with the quote from Fr. Harakas could be if Gebre is paraphrasing his words, but then putting it in quotation marks. But anyway picking it apart seems to be way overblown. We are not talking about a work by a Harvard professor, but probably the commentary on peace and life by a down to earth convert to Oriental Orthodoxy.

Anyway, the quotes you found most offensive were those in the original post. And they were arguable.

St. Basil takes a very negative view of war, although he says sometimes it can be pardonable (eg. doing something wrong and then being forgiven for it).

Then, Gebre wrote that he agreed with some words of Fr. Harakas and he quoted them. Gebre did not say he agreed with everything on the topic. I could find a quote from a Church father on the Psalms, say I agree with the church father who says "_____". Yet that would not mean I agree with everything he wrote on the subject. Here, Fr. Harakas wrote about the Church father's negative view on war, and Gebre agreed with that.

As you pointed out, Fr. Harakas went on to make a more positive assessment of war:

Quote

Virtually absent in the tradition is any mention of a “just” war, much less a “good” war. For the Eastern Orthodox tradition, I concluded, war can be seen only as a “necessary evil,” with all the difficulty and imprecision such a designation carries.

Yet even here, Fr. Harakas said war "can" be seen as necessary, not that it is necessary.

Plus, one can reasonably argue that holy people should not engage in a large evil, even if it is "necessary". Faced with an order by an inquisitor to convert from the faith, it becomes absolutely necessary to do so. And yet we are not to do it anyway. Granted, the Church takes a more positive view of war than of a forced apostasy, but my point is that something being necessary does not make it OK.

So when it comes to St. Basil and Gebre's discussion of Fr. Harakas, it is arguable.

One possible problem with the quote from Fr. Harakas could be if Gebre is paraphrasing his words, but then putting it in quotation marks. But anyway picking it apart seems to be way overblown. We are not talking about a work by a Harvard professor, but probably the commentary on peace and life by a down to earth convert to Orthodoxy.

I would say it is arguable to an extent, however, the way Gebre presents it is as if St. Basil, and others, have that view, since he does not mention St. Basil does not take a pacifist stance then it should be noted. The OP was an example of what Gebre does do consistently, in hindsight I wish I would have opted to elaborate more on that and perhaps use a bit more tact, which I often admittedly lack.

I am sure if you did something similar and someone pointed it out to you, you would either elaborate on why you did it, perhaps elaborating more, or, just say, oh I did not notice that and correct it. As opposed to making disparaging comments against those trying to correct you, delete their comments, or accuse them of attacking and or maligning your character.

St. Hippolytus' quote that Gebre uses, which is not listed, IS an arguable one. Was it written because the military was used to persecute the Chrsitians or was St. Hippolytus saying in general no Christian ever should join the military? I give him that, I do not agree with his interpretation but I can see how he WOULD interpret St. Hippolytus that way.

But again, I apologize for my lack of tact and lack of judgment in posting this issue, which seems to me to be a serious and consistent issue, but not to others. Thank you all.

We could then have 6 pages of arguments on why he is a heretic for saying he might venerate an icon of the Theotokos that does not have stars on it if it was in his parish. Of course, I would assure you that he is a good friend of mine and I have approached him about this, but he has refused to repent, so I have no choice but to bring it to the public in hopes that he will repent.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

I simply posted this on FB, here, and on Amazon.com and left it at that.

Is this considered harassment?

Harassment, and just plain creepy. And you didn't leave it at that until you apologized after a million follow up posts.

To be honest, I did not expect the response here that I got. The only reason I continued was to try and clarify my OP, that it was not a disagreement about pacifism or just war. I tried to stay on topic but I am still a little unsure of how defending my OP is considered "harassment" and apparently I am now "creepy." But again I apologize for having given this impression.

I simply posted this on FB, here, and on Amazon.com and left it at that.

Is this considered harassment?

Harassment, and just plain creepy. And you didn't leave it at that until you apologized after a million follow up posts.

To be honest, I did not expect the response here that I got. The only reason I continued was to try and clarify my OP, that it was not a disagreement about pacifism or just war. I tried to stay on topic but I am still a little unsure of how defending my OP is considered "harassment" and apparently I am now "creepy." But again I apologize for having given this impression.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

I simply posted this on FB, here, and on Amazon.com and left it at that.

Is this considered harassment?

Harassment, and just plain creepy. And you didn't leave it at that until you apologized after a million follow up posts.

To be honest, I did not expect the response here that I got. The only reason I continued was to try and clarify my OP, that it was not a disagreement about pacifism or just war. I tried to stay on topic but I am still a little unsure of how defending my OP is considered "harassment" and apparently I am now "creepy." But again I apologize for having given this impression.

Ioannes, I think it safe to say that nobody really wants to hear you opine on this subject anymore.

Maybe we should start another thread on this, but since it seems appropriate here. I think everyone should be required to post their parish name and location, with priests name, email and phone number, as well as their Bishops corresponding information. You know, just in case we need to contact them later based on what someone says here. In the event they need to be punished corrected.

Kerdy, I was only suggesting that they should consult as to whether they are on the right path. Don't lampoon me on something that I think is important.

It wasn't in response to your post, rather to Ioannes' demand to know Gebre's information and Gebre didn't give it to him.

I apologize Kerdy, the similarity it the topic to mine, without reference, led me to the false supposition. I did appreciate your posts early on in this thread.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Of course this is wrong on many counts. First, it's not even football......

Football in UK is usually what our American cousins refer to as soccer, can also be Rugby Union or Rugby League and then there is Australian rules football, a game for real men with a patent disregard for their own or anyone else's safety. The former is often referred to as the beautiful game or, my favourite, a game for gentlemen played by thugs.

Quite what the heck is going on with guys in armour charging up and down with an egg is beyond me. But it's not football as we know it.

And the beautiful game is played all over the World but the American innovation which isn't has a World Series, which it isn't. I'm confused and need a glass of Black Bush.

I find American football to be far more entertaining than competitive flopping soccer, but I don't mind piling onto handegg a bit sometimes as well. In particular: it's funny that while there are people who use their feet in American football, they are usually the least respected players on the team, usually drafted rather late (if at all), the lowest paid starters, etc...

I find American football to be far more entertaining than competitive flopping soccer, but I don't mind piling onto handegg a bit sometimes as well. In particular: it's funny that while there are people who use their feet in American football, they are usually the least respected players on the team, usually drafted rather late (if at all), the lowest paid starters, etc...

Still, yeah, let's go handeggers football!

I am normally excited about "handegg" but with as bad as I expect the Steelers to do this year, it is more just dread for this season.

The term planet earth is an innovation which has arisen in recent centuries with the error of heliocentrism.

If one wants to confess a pure doctrine of Orthodoxy, they should be careful not to refer to the earth as a planet, unlike the current Pope as well as Patriarch Kirill and Patriarch Bartholomew, who regularly speak in error when they refer to our planet earth.

What is wrong with him! Fundamentalist, not loving his brother he should have talked to him! ;p

but St. Gregory Palamas spoke of Barlaam by name in his treaties... ;p although I guess he was just trying to defend not attack :p

although it could be said the op is doing the same here, defend his view

in some way...

I do not understand a word that you are saying. You should remedy this.

If by him you are referring to Gebre, the fundamentalists are saying he loves his brother too much.

Everything else you stated is total gibberish, it would be best if you condescend to people equal of my knowledge and intellect OR LESS!.

no no no,

by him i am refering to St. John Chrysostom for leaving the bathhouse when the heretic entered. I some people on this forum would call that fundamentalist and hateful behavior and condemn him for it! it was a joke.

Also, about St. Gregory PAlamas, I was debating with myself how Ioannes is going about in this thread, and trying to compare how saints have fought against heresies. One saint left the bathhouse when the heretic entered, another wrote books condemning heresies and naming the names of heretics. That means, in public.

Also, in previous post, thinking in a public ROMAN FORUM if a saint would condemn a person's beliefs who is in the crowd. Like Ioannes condemning a person in the crowd of this forum

sorry if i make no sense

I only thought of these things because people said he was doing this incorrectly, being harrassing. So I wondered in my head if any saints did things like this too

Just to clarify, it was St. John the Evangelist that the bathhouse story is about, coming through St. Polycarp and recorded by St. Irenaeus:

Quote

There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, “Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.”

Just to clarify, it was St. John the Evangelist that the bathhouse story is about, coming through St. Polycarp and recorded by St. Irenaeus:

Quote

There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, “Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.”

What is wrong with him! Fundamentalist, not loving his brother he should have talked to him! ;p

but St. Gregory Palamas spoke of Barlaam by name in his treaties... ;p although I guess he was just trying to defend not attack :p

although it could be said the op is doing the same here, defend his view

in some way...

I do not understand a word that you are saying. You should remedy this.

If by him you are referring to Gebre, the fundamentalists are saying he loves his brother too much.

Everything else you stated is total gibberish, it would be best if you condescend to people equal of my knowledge and intellect OR LESS!.

no no no,

by him i am refering to St. John Chrysostom for leaving the bathhouse when the heretic entered. I some people on this forum would call that fundamentalist and hateful behavior and condemn him for it! it was a joke.

Also, about St. Gregory PAlamas, I was debating with myself how Ioannes is going about in this thread, and trying to compare how saints have fought against heresies. One saint left the bathhouse when the heretic entered, another wrote books condemning heresies and naming the names of heretics. That means, in public.

Also, in previous post, thinking in a public ROMAN FORUM if a saint would condemn a person's beliefs who is in the crowd. Like Ioannes condemning a person in the crowd of this forum

sorry if i make no sense

I only thought of these things because people said he was doing this incorrectly, being harrassing. So I wondered in my head if any saints did things like this too

This is fine by me. However, how can I understand you if yo did not post your thoughts on this thread. I do not think I am capable of clairvoyance.

What is wrong with him! Fundamentalist, not loving his brother he should have talked to him! ;p

but St. Gregory Palamas spoke of Barlaam by name in his treaties... ;p although I guess he was just trying to defend not attack :p

although it could be said the op is doing the same here, defend his view

in some way...

I do not understand a word that you are saying. You should remedy this.

If by him you are referring to Gebre, the fundamentalists are saying he loves his brother too much.

Everything else you stated is total gibberish, it would be best if you condescend to people equal of my knowledge and intellect OR LESS!.

no no no,

by him i am refering to St. John Chrysostom for leaving the bathhouse when the heretic entered. I some people on this forum would call that fundamentalist and hateful behavior and condemn him for it! it was a joke.

Also, about St. Gregory PAlamas, I was debating with myself how Ioannes is going about in this thread, and trying to compare how saints have fought against heresies. One saint left the bathhouse when the heretic entered, another wrote books condemning heresies and naming the names of heretics. That means, in public.

Also, in previous post, thinking in a public ROMAN FORUM if a saint would condemn a person's beliefs who is in the crowd. Like Ioannes condemning a person in the crowd of this forum

sorry if i make no sense

I only thought of these things because people said he was doing this incorrectly, being harrassing. So I wondered in my head if any saints did things like this too

This is fine by me. However, how can I understand you if yo did not post your thoughts on this thread. I do not think I am capable of clairvoyance.

would it have made more sense if i quoted directly when the other talked about St. John and the bathhouse?? (i have a habit of not clicking the quote button...)

i assumed it would make sense, the second post, i was acting it like an addition to my first post two beforew where i wondered about how saints debated heretics

but anyway im sorry again im not very good at talking :p and i have a habit of putting too many breaks in my sentences and thoughts (i would have put one after that "and" bit there ;p ) I will try to make more sense in the future but i dont have much hope for it!!! And IF i said all my thoughts I would be banned really quickly :p

by him i am refering to St. John Chrysostom for leaving the bathhouse when the heretic entered. I some people on this forum would call that fundamentalist and hateful behavior and condemn him for it! it was a joke.

Also, about St. Gregory PAlamas, I was debating with myself how Ioannes is going about in this thread, and trying to compare how saints have fought against heresies. One saint left the bathhouse when the heretic entered, another wrote books condemning heresies and naming the names of heretics. That means, in public.

Also, in previous post, thinking in a public ROMAN FORUM if a saint would condemn a person's beliefs who is in the crowd. Like Ioannes condemning a person in the crowd of this forum

sorry if i make no sense

I only thought of these things because people said he was doing this incorrectly, being harrassing. So I wondered in my head if any saints did things like this too

The "heresies", which typically deal with things like christology rather than politics or war, were usually isms named after the beliefs they described, like Bogo-milism or Monophysit-ism. In this case the topic would be Pacif-ism.

The OP should have titled his post asking if Pacifism was a heresy, not whether "Gebredoxy" was a heresy.

by him i am refering to St. John Chrysostom for leaving the bathhouse when the heretic entered. I some people on this forum would call that fundamentalist and hateful behavior and condemn him for it! it was a joke.

Also, about St. Gregory PAlamas, I was debating with myself how Ioannes is going about in this thread, and trying to compare how saints have fought against heresies. One saint left the bathhouse when the heretic entered, another wrote books condemning heresies and naming the names of heretics. That means, in public.

Also, in previous post, thinking in a public ROMAN FORUM if a saint would condemn a person's beliefs who is in the crowd. Like Ioannes condemning a person in the crowd of this forum

sorry if i make no sense

I only thought of these things because people said he was doing this incorrectly, being harrassing. So I wondered in my head if any saints did things like this too

The "heresies", which typically deal with things like christology rather than politics or war, were usually isms named after the beliefs they described, like Bogo-milism or Monophysit-ism. In this case the topic would be Pacif-ism.

The OP should have titled his post asking if Pacifism was a heresy, not whether "Gebredoxy" was a heresy.

The Eastern Church does not embrace strict pacificism... However even when it becomes necessary to take up arms to defend one's nation and family, killing in war is still wrong. For that reason, every soldier who kills during war must undergo penance.

by him i am refering to St. John Chrysostom for leaving the bathhouse when the heretic entered. I some people on this forum would call that fundamentalist and hateful behavior and condemn him for it! it was a joke.

No, that wasn't St. John Chrysostom, but St. John the Divine who fled from a public bath when Cerinthus entered. Chrysostom would only bathe in utter solitude, at least according to his opponents at the Synod of the Oak.